[1] Whether a person who did not receive a disposition of beneficial administrative disposition against one of the competitors is eligible to seek the revocation of such disposition (affirmative with qualification)

[2] Legal nature of the guidelines for handling non-management authority's business permission, etc.

[3] The case holding that a disposition to implement a harbor project by the chief of a regional maritime affairs and fisheries office abused discretion

[1] When multiple persons who applied for a beneficial administrative disposition such as authorization and permission have no choice but to grant permission, etc. to one party in competition with the other party, a person who did not obtain permission, etc. shall be entitled to seek the revocation of the pertinent administrative disposition even if the other party is not the other party to the disposition. However, in a specific case where the disposition is revoked but it cannot be deemed that any disadvantage that was not subject to permission, etc. is recovered, there is no legitimate

[2] The non-management authority's permission for implementation of a harbor project is an act of establishing a specific person's right, and it does not have any provision on the criteria for permission for the Harbor Act and its Enforcement Decree, and thus belongs to the discretion of the administrative agency, and the "business process guidelines for permission for implementation of a harbor project" (No. 1996-19 of the Notice of the Korea Shipping and Port Authority) is merely an internal business practice guidelines within the administrative agency, which is the criteria for exercising discretion, and thus,

[3] The case holding that a disposition to implement a harbor project by the chief of a regional maritime affairs and fisheries office abused discretion

[1] Article 12 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [2] Article 9 of the Harbor Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act / [3] Article 9 of the Harbor Act, Article 27 of the Administrative Litigation Act

Samil Co., Ltd. (Attorney Jeong-tae, Counsel for defendant-appellant)

Maritime Affairs and Fisheries Office

East Sea Line Co., Ltd. (Attorneys Park Jong-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Daegu High Court Decision 97Gu6521 delivered on February 20, 1998

The appeal is dismissed. The costs of appeal are assessed against the supplementary intervenor and the remainder are assessed against the defendant.

1. When multiple persons who applied for a beneficial administrative disposition such as authorization and permission have no choice but to make a disposition of permission, etc. against one party in competition with the other party, a person who did not obtain permission, etc. shall be entitled to seek the revocation of the pertinent administrative disposition even if the other party is not the other party to the disposition. However, in a specific case where the disposition is revoked but it is not deemed that any disadvantage that was not subject to permission, etc. is recovered, there is no legitimate interest to seek the revocation of the pertinent administrative disposition (see Supreme Court Decision 91Nu13274 delivered on May 8,

The lower court determined that the Plaintiff and the Intervenor filed an application for permission to implement harbor works in order to install a sea sand dyp salt treatment facility after the port bed 4 where the same place was located, and the Defendant agreed to grant permission only to one company, and thus, the Plaintiff’s application did not have to be rejected upon the application of the Intervenor. Accordingly, the lower court determined that there was a legal interest in seeking revocation of the permission disposition against

Therefore, such determination by the court below is justified, and contrary to the allegations in the grounds of appeal, there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to the legal interest seeking the revocation of administrative disposition. The ground of appeal

2. The court below held that the non-management authority of this case's non-management authority's permission is an act of establishing a specific person's right, which does not have any provision on the criteria for permission of the Harbor Act and its Enforcement Decree, and it belongs to the administrative authority's discretion, and "the work process guidelines concerning permission of the non-management authority's execution of harbor works" (No. 1996-19 of the Ministry of Maritime Affairs and Port Authority's notification) is merely an internal work rule within the administrative authority's discretion, which is the criteria for exercising discretionary authority's discretion, and thus, the legitimacy of the permission disposition depends on the determination of abuse of discretionary authority's discretionary authority's discretionary authority's discretionary authority's discretionary authority's discretionary authority's discretionary authority's discretionary authority's discretionary authority's discretionary authority's discretionary authority's decision. Article 6 (2) of the above work process guidelines provides for the criteria for examination and the criteria for allocation of points to the court below's decision. However, the court below decided that the plaintiff's application for permission of this case's voluntary intervenor's discretionary authority's decision is more unlawful.

In light of the above, the court below's measures are just, and there is no error in the misapprehension of legal principles as to abuse of discretionary power, etc., as alleged in the grounds of appeal.

3. Therefore, the appeal shall be dismissed, and all costs of appeal shall be borne and decided as per Disposition.

Justices Lee Don-hee (Presiding Justice)